|
REGULAR MEETING October 9, 2017
<br /> next part, "In the second and subsequent years of the abatement, the effective minimum wage for
<br /> the tax abatement recipient is at least two percent (2%)than in the previous year."
<br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis made a motion to accept the amendment to Substitute Bill No. 48-
<br /> 17 as stated. Councilmember Tim Scott seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of
<br /> nine (9) ayes.
<br /> Councilmember Tim Scott made a motion to send Substitute Bill No. 48-17, as amended, to the
<br /> full Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Oliver Davis seconded the
<br /> motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes.
<br /> 66-17 PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE OF
<br /> THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
<br /> SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, AMENDING THE
<br /> SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE AT
<br /> CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 17-4 TO
<br /> ADDRESS PROCEDURES FOR DOWNSPOUT
<br /> DISCONNECTIONS
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden, Chair of the Health and Public Safety Committee,reported that
<br /> they met this afternoon and send this bill forward with a favorable recommendation.
<br /> James Mueller,Executive Director of the Department of Community Investment, with offices on
<br /> the 14th Floor of the County-City Building, South Bend, IN, served as the presenter of this bill.
<br /> Mr. Mueller stated, What we have before you are some amendments to the Downspout
<br /> Disconnect Program that was passed two (2) years ago by the previous Council. The long-term
<br /> goal is to get the sources off the combined sewer system. None of these sources were assumed to
<br /> come off the combined sewer system in the modeling for the new Long Term Control Plan
<br /> proposal that's before the federal government. The idea here is that we want to give a clear signal
<br /> to people who own buildings or other entities that if the benefits of disconnecting are greater than
<br /> the cost, we want them to do that; and if the benefits are not equal to the cost, in some cases the
<br /> cost of disconnecting the downspouts are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars,because these
<br /> pipes are inside walls,underneath floors—then you have to do something with the water,too,
<br /> and some sites don't have places where you can store the storm water. So,the effective fee of
<br /> what would be equivalent to the benefits is assumed to be the cost of the Long Term Control
<br /> Plan. As a policy,the Administration and the Council has adopted that what we're bringing the
<br /> federal government right now—the $200,000,000 price tag over to the one (1)that's closer to
<br /> $1,000,000,000. So, you take the $200,000,000 cost that's going to be over the next twenty
<br /> (20) years or so—and then you assume that every year you get benefits from doing that. You'll
<br /> get benefits past twenty(20)years, but we think after twenty(20) years is a reasonable place to
<br /> cut it off in the calculation. So,there will be about 8,000,000,000 gallons of CSO overflow that's
<br /> avoided because of the Long Term Control Plan. So, you divide $200,000,000 by the
<br /> 8,000,000,000 and you get a fourth(1/a) of a penny, I believe,per gallon as the cost-benefit
<br /> analysis. Then you figure out what the rainfall is per year, and you get one (1) gallon per square
<br /> foot of the pervious area, and that's what's before you. So, if you can get stuff off—or you can
<br /> get part of your impervious surface off of the combined system—you only pay for the square
<br /> footage that remains, going on the combined system. And it's a one (1) time fee. So, we think
<br /> that this gives a lot of clarity,because the old system was more up for interpretation regarding
<br /> feasibility—what was the threshold, what were the metrics? Here, we're looking at the benefits.
<br /> If it's more beneficial, if the cost is worth it: do it. We'll promote that. If it's not, we should have
<br /> some sort of off-ramp that makes sense.
<br /> This being the time heretofore set for the Public Hearing on the above bill, proponents and
<br /> opponents were given an opportunity to be heard.
<br /> There were none from the public wishing to speak in favor of or opposition to this bill.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked, Why the two-and-a-half(21/2) year delay on either of
<br /> these, and why can't it be implemented sooner? What's the consideration there?
<br /> 5
<br />
|